Take Down Joe Mullin's New Snowden Article

The Joe Mullin story on the NSA leaker's personal life is linkbait trash, and shouldn't be on Ars. Including photos of the man's girlfriend and referencing her 'tear-streaked keyboard?' From your tech policy editor? What is this story doing on Ars? Very, very disappointing.

Ars. Do NOT take down that story. It is important that people know the whole truth about the situation.

People are blinded by the emotion of one person and don't see the whole picture. Compounding the tragedy.

Pretty much. I think it shows the other side of what happens when someone decides they are going abandon everything they agreed to uphold. The Ars article is much more tasteful than the Daily Mail one.

What's the point? What truth is illuminated? I can see some possible truths it could point to, but currently does not. It does, however, point to a lingerie photo on Instagram. Rewrite it to have a focus, otherwise it's worthless.

While an article about Snowden's life before this might add a human dimension to his story, this article wasn't it.

An article about someone's (removed) blog plus a somewhat suggestive photo (with suggestions of moar to be found on the interwebs ), comes across as nothing more than sensationalism. It honestly didn't even feel like an article. More like "Hey, Joe, we need some more page views this month. Write up something, KTHXBAI."

One could, if one were so inclined, write a human interest article about Snowden that's both informative, human (family, friends, girlfriend), and adds something to his story.

This story felt like something a runner slapped together for a quarter page blurb in Vanity Fair. And that is not a compliment, if there's any doubt.

For a site that's done a lot to raise awareness of, and combat against, sexism and heterosexism in the technology community, this article is really disappointing. Not only does have questionable relevance to the core story but it's approach to the subject matter and choice of photos and linkage, just oozes creepy, destructive "male gaze" internet culture.

I think taking the article down is probably the wrong move, particularly if the author and/or editors don't understand why it's a bad article.

For a site that's done a lot to raise awareness of, and combat against, sexism and heterosexism in the technology community, this article is really disappointing. Not only does have questionable relevance to the core story but it's approach to the subject matter and choice of photos and linkage, just oozes creepy, destructive "male gaze" internet culture.

Two self-published pictures of a girl wearing a short skirt is "creepy"...? Seriously...?

Ars, please edit pictures of girls so I can't see anything more shocking than an ankle...!

It's the overall context that includes the editorial tone, the subject matter, and the manner in which the content and photos are used together, not the individual photos in isolation. Don't be stupid.

While an article about Snowden's life before this might add a human dimension to his story, this article wasn't it.

An article about someone's (removed) blog plus a somewhat suggestive photo (with suggestions of moar to be found on the interwebs ), comes across as nothing more than sensationalism. It honestly didn't even feel like an article. More like "Hey, Joe, we need some more page views this month. Write up something, KTHXBAI."

One could, if one were so inclined, write a human interest article about Snowden that's both informative, human (family, friends, girlfriend), and adds something to his story.

This story felt like something a runner slapped together for a quarter page blurb in Vanity Fair. And that is not a compliment, if there's any doubt.

I'll just add my name to the growing list of Ars readers that aren't happy about the article.

It's the overall context that includes the editorial tone, the subject matter, and the manner in which the content and photos are used together, not the individual photos in isolation. Don't be stupid.

It's the overall context that includes the editorial tone, the subject matter, and the manner in which the content and photos are used together, not the individual photos in isolation. Don't be stupid.

It's the overall context that includes the editorial tone, the subject matter, and the manner in which the content and photos are used together, not the individual photos in isolation. Don't be stupid.

Or have a dissenting opinion.

You demonstrated that you clearly didn't understand my point when you only pointed out the imagery and made a crack about showing skin. It's not a dissenting opinion if you don't even understand my position in the first place.

What I'd like to see at the very least is this quote and link removed:

Quote:

Yesterday, she published an Instagram photo featuring a self-portrait of her wearing only underwear (one of many), and holding a globe.

What is the point? And why point out that she has posted "many" such photos? Slut-shaming? Seriously bad taste. I thought that Ars Technica stood for a higher standard of respect for privacy than this. And the arguments that she should never have posted these things publicly sound eerily close to "if you have nothing to hide why do you need privacy" arguments about surveillance itself.

Ars. Do NOT take down that story. It is important that people know the whole truth about the situation.

People are blinded by the emotion of one person and don't see the whole picture. Compounding the tragedy.

Pretty much. I think it shows the other side of what happens when someone decides they are going abandon everything they agreed to uphold. The Ars article is much more tasteful than the Daily Mail one.

Thanks for the support. We are not pulling the post. Joe believed that the story reported on an angle to the situation that was interesting. Others are free to disagree, but the fact of the matter is that when individuals do shocking things (Boston bombers, Castro abductor, etc.), some people want to understand the broader context.

Thanks for the support. We are not pulling the post. Joe believed that the story reported on an angle to the situation that was interesting. Others are free to disagree, but the fact of the matter is that when individuals do shocking things (Boston bombers, Castro abductor, etc.), some people want to understand the broader context.

It is not contextual, it is irrelevant. And correlating the actions of a whistleblower to a mass-murderer as 'shocking'? What was shocking was not his action; what was shocking was what he told us about what our government is doing. THAT IS THE FOCUS, THE CONTEXT.

Agreed. To Ars staff: It is probably worth taking some more time to think about *why* you are getting a pretty universally negative response from so many people - and whether they might, just possibly, have a bit of a point - before you start doubling-down and closing ranks.

The article was (slightly trashy) link-bait fluff. It added almost nothing newsworthy or noteworthy to the understanding of the larger context in its current form. (Surprising event leaves someone confused and in turmoil: news and fanservice at 11!) Such an article could be done, and might well be worthwhile - but this was absolutely not it.

How utterly ridiculous to claim that there is nothing shocking about the actions of Snowden. You do realize that millions of people disagree with you, right? Have you not seen any of the comments from the Hill? Like Manning, this guy may spend the rest of his life in jail.

It is probably worth taking some more time to think about *why* you are getting a pretty universally negative response from so many people - and whether they might, just possibly, have a bit of a point - before you start doubling-down and closing ranks.

You do realize that we can both leave the post up and take said time, right?

Most of the posters in this thread look at the story content negatively, but I'm quite sure that the story was well received and illuminating for others and that we're simply not hearing from them in this thread. In fact, I don't see much back-slapping at all ever posted here.

You do realize that we can both leave the post up and take said time, right?You act as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

I think everyone realizes that is an option. It's just an option you haven't shown an inclination to take in your communications thus far (although in fairness, I might have missed it, given how quickly things are going.) I've just heard you say "post stays up", and refer to concerns as "white knighting", not "post stays up, and we will spend some time to consider the feedback that all of you have given."

Also, I have not and am not calling for the article to be taken down. I realize Ars has a long history of trying to avoid that in both the forums and the front page. I just think it should never have been written or posted in anything remotely resembling its current form, and I think that once you get a chancer to sit down, think about the concerns that people have presented here and elsewhere, that you should make a meaningful effort to address them. I also think that using terms like "white knighting" to refer to the sort of concerns that people have expressed here is neither respectful nor helpful.

Most of the posters in this thread look at the story content negatively, but I'm quite sure that the story was well received and illuminating for others and that we're simply not hearing from them in this thread. In fact, I don't see much back-slapping at all ever posted here.

You are, of course, correct that people hardly ever post "good on ya's" in this forum, but people *do* post plenty of positive feedback on comments on the main page - and right now, the feedback there is highly negative.

Edit:Even if you think it is a relatively inoffensive piece in terms of content and scope (it's not completely inoffensive, since clearly so many *are* offended), I think many of us hope that Ars writers can and will do better than "relatively inoffensive". Some of us even hold out hope for adjectives like "interesting" or "useful" or "informative."

when individuals do shocking things (Boston bombers, Castro abductor, etc.), some people want to understand the broader context.

There is nothing shocking about the ACTIONS of Edward Snowden. Indeed he acted like any bold and strong-principled citizen of a democracy would do. It was the secrets he REVEALED that were shocking and that is something completely different.

You should be ashamed of yourself, sir, for comparing a man of integrity with terrorists and rapists.

Yes. A strong and princicpled person who was willing to sacrafice the happiness of his friends and family. Who might not have seen the consequences of his actions and other people get hurt.

The unintended victims of a patriot or a hero. What do you think Bradly Mannings family is going through?

Snowden's actions, for better or worse, have far more ranging consquences than just his own future.

You do realize that we can both leave the post up and take said time, right?You act as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

I think everyone realizes that is an option. It's just an option you haven't shown an inclination to take in your communications thus far (although in fairness, I might have missed it, given how quickly things are going.) I've just heard you say "post stays up", and refer to concerns as "white knighting", not "post stays up, and we will spend some time to consider the feedback that all of you have given."

Also, I have not and am not calling for the article to be taken down. I realize Ars has a long history of trying to avoid that in both the forums and the front page. I just think it should never have been written or posted in anything remotely resembling its current form, and I think that once you get a chancer to sit down, think about the concerns that people have presented here and elsewhere, that you should make a meaningful effort to address them. I also think that using terms like "white knighting" to refer to the sort of concerns that people have expressed here is neither respectful nor helpful.

Agreed completely. It's one thing to stand by your writer and not take action if you feel it would be compromising yours or your staff's principles. But to act as if we're a mindless mob with off-hand insults is a different issue. It takes this from a question of journalistic decision making to a question of Ars' organizational principles. I'm shocked and disappointed. And to show that disappointment, I've just paid for a year-long New York Times subscription and will be leaving the Ars community. If this is what you stand for, I'm going somewhere else.

How utterly ridiculous to claim that there is nothing shocking about the actions of Snowden. You do realize that millions of people disagree with you, right? Have you not seen any of the comments from the Hill? Like Manning, this guy may spend the rest of his life in jail.

Is this article like some kind of intentionally-inflamatory meta commentary about the shocking nature of the erosion of privacy? Dig up dirt on Mills to get your readership outraged about the display of data as an exercise in drawing parallels to PRISM and the government's broad data collection?

It wouldn't be the first time you guys have pulled a meta stunt like that.